Literacy Development in Early Childhood

Benefits of Read-Alouds
in Early Childhood Literacy Development
By
Megan R. Mills
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

M.S. Literacy Education
Supervised by
Dr. Joellen Maples
School of Arts and Sciences

St. John Fisher College
August 2012
BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Abstract
This study examined the benefits of read alouds and early childhood literacy development.
Research was conducted in preschool classrooms that use whole group interactive read alouds, as
part of the daily literacy instruction. Data was collected through observation, teacher and
student questionnaires, and examination and analysis of student work samples, in response to the
daily read-aloud. The findings show that interactive read-alouds are highly beneficial for early
childhood literacy development resulting in increased engagement, strengthened reading and
writing skills, and the students abilities to make connections. In order to promote student
interaction during learning, teachers must motivate their students by creating authentic,
purposeful, and engaging literacy experiences that involve the teacher and students engaging,
communicating and collaborating with each other.

Benefits of Read-Alouds in Early Childhood Literacy Development
During read-alouds, it is the teacher who reads the text not the students. Research and
current practice support the use of teacher read-alouds as a significant component of instruction
across grade levels (Fisher, Flood, Lap, & Frey, 2004). It is crucial that educators incorporate
read-alouds into the literacy curriculum as early as pre-school. Read-alouds model expressive,
enthusiastic reading while sharing the pleasure of reading, encouraging the listeners to socially
interact and become a part of the story.
Literacy does not just reside in peoples heads as a set of skills to be learned, but like all
human activity, literacy is essentially social and is located in the interaction between people
(Barton & Hamilton, 1998). Read-alouds can lead to an improvement in language expression
throughout all curriculum subjects and help children understand the components, structure, and
function of narrative story telling (Fisher et al., 2004). Every read-aloud provides interaction
between the teacher and students, as each story provides different means of discussion and
interpretation based on how the story is delivered and used for instruction. Reading aloud is one
of the most common and easiest means of sharing books in a pleasurable experience (Cohen &
Cowen, 2011). During read-alouds the teacher and/or parent reads with expression, modeling
and maintaining a slow reading pace, while engaging with the subject/subjects being read aloud
to. Not only does reading aloud to students model good reading habits, but it also allows the
children to become involved with different genres of literature and introduces them to new
vocabulary, and comprehension strategies. The earlier children are exposed to read-alouds, the
more immersed they will become in literature. The question is how exactly does reading aloud to
children benefit early childhood literacy development? If early exposure to literacy is critical,
then the students who are not immersed and engaged in read-alouds truly are at a loss, as there

are many different components of literacy that are involved during daily read-alouds in the
classroom, that encourage growth in both oral and written language.
To prove the benefits of read-alouds in early childhood literacy development, a study will be
conducted with my current pre-school class. As part of the curriculum, read-alouds are
incorporated into instruction each day, every morning during story time. I have found readalouds as an effective literacy tool that both engages and provides real life understandings for
preschoolers. Before, during, and after our read-alouds the children participate in literacy
activities such as choral reading early reader books, tracing and discussing vocabulary words
from the story, sequencing the events from the story, drawing and interpreting their own
perspectives on the story, making predictions through discussion with the integration of math,
and constructing projects based on concepts from the theme often pulled right from the books
read-aloud. By consistently making an effort to integrate other subjects with literacy instruction,
the students continue to make gains in both their oral and written communication. At three and
four years old the students are able to identify letters and recognize the relationship between
letters and their sounds. They can spell and write their names independently, trace vocabulary
words, write vocabulary words independently using guides, discuss vocabulary concepts, make
predictions and inferences, and recall important events, places, and characters from the story.
The literacy practices involved in my classroom truly impact and influence oral and written
language development, which are driven from read-alouds, and strengthen the literacy abilities of
students at the early childhood level.
Further research proved the benefits of reading aloud to students at the early childhood
level. This study involved a group of preschool students who were observed as they participated
in daily read-alouds in the classroom during literacy instruction. Along with the students,

teachers from the school in which the study was conducted were also included in the study. The
students participated in daily interactive read-alouds including discussion and reading and
writing instruction. The teachers participated in a read-aloud survery and also completed a
classroom literacy environment checklist. The examination of this data was used to understand
how read alouds benefit early childhood literacy development. My research suggests that readalouds benefit students at the early child hood level as students acquire knowledge of new
vocabulary, learned skills to comprehend and understand the text, and became aware of the
importance of connections and how to make specific text to self, text to text, and text to world
connections. Read-alouds model and exhibit the correct way of reading a text aloud through
student and teacher discussion and analyzation of text, vocabulary, and problems within the story
Teachers constantly point out the author and illustrators names, and model for the students how
to hold a book and turn the pages correctly. Lastly, this exploration of read-alouds provided
evidence that children are more engaged in literature that they connect to as it is easier for them
to comprehend and make meaning from the text, but in order to make the connections they need
to participate in daily read-alouds at the same time each day and complete reading, writing, math,
and science instruction that directly correlates to the chosen books and theme each week.
Theoretical Framework
Literacy is the control of primary and secondary discourses. A primary discourse or the
primary use of language is used within the home. A secondary discourse or a secondary use of
language is language used beyond the home (Gee, 2001). The sociocultural theory applies to
literacy both inside and outside of the classroom, as literacy does not just reside in peoples
heads as a set of skills to be learned, but that like all human activity, literacy is essentially social,

located in the interaction between people. (Larson and Marsh, 2005).
Both primary and secondary discourses stem from our beliefs and values, which
essentially make up who we are. For a child to become literate, the child needs to be immersed in
an enriched social environment beginning at infancy, throughout the stages of early childhood
development providing the child with the necessary tools to accept the beliefs and values of their
culture. Once children exchange the primary and secondary discourses that are utilized and
valued within their society, they can then begin to communicate and interact with the outside
world through the oral and written language as emergent readers and writers. Kucer (2009) states
that both oral and written discourses are expressions of language and therefore exhibit shared
features, such as dual structures, and rule governed systems. Writing is not oral language
expressed through print, and written language is not speech written down, however written
language extends and builds on the oral language system but does not replicate it. It is obvious
that there is a relationship between oral and written language as oral and written roles both play a
play an important part in a childs social, linguistic, and cognitive language development.
Children need to acquire oral and written language, and be able to use oral and written
language effectively in a variety of settings including the classroom environment. There are
many reasons to read-aloud to students throughout the year, but the demonstration of different
writing styles and forms of written language, as well as the modeling of oral language through
the introduction of words and sounds can lead to an improvement in language expression
throughout all curriculum subjects at every grade level.
The sociocultural theory applies to my study that read-alouds benefit early childhood
literacy development, as social interaction between the students and teacher take place every
time a new story is being read aloud. In order for the read-aloud to be effective and create

opportunity for discussion between the students and teacher surrounding the text, it is important
that read-alouds are consistently modeled exhibiting discussion of text, establishment of a
purpose, incorporation of animation and expression, and modeling of fluent reading.
Student and teacher discussion during and after read-alouds is influenced by the selection
of high quality texts based on the interest and needs of the students, and can be further extended
through the connection of read-alouds to independent and interactive reading and writing
activities. Larson and Marsh (2005), state that literacy lies within the interaction between people.
Not only do read-alouds involve social interaction between the teacher and the students, but the
sociocultural theory is applied in the classroom when the read-aloud text is being discussed and
interpreted based on the ways in which it connects to the teacher and students.
Not only do read-alouds enhance and encourage classroom discussion, they enrich
students general knowledge, demonstrate different writing styles and forms of written language,
stimulate interest in different subjects, introduce different genres that children may not be
inclined to read, expose children to new words and sounds, and introduce children to different
authors (Cohen & Cowen, 2011).
Research Question
Given that literacy is a social practice, and that childrens discoveries about literacy in a
literate society must begin much earlier than at school age, this action research project asks, how
can shared reading can be used to benefit early childhood literacy development?
Literature Review
A familiar routine in many early childhood and primary elementary classrooms is the
teacher-led read-aloud. During read-alouds the teacher sits in front of the students and reads out
loud a childrens text. This model is particularly true in whole language classrooms where

sharing a wide variety of books assumes a center place in literacy instruction (Oyler, 1996).
Research on teacher-led read-alouds, as well as read-alouds instructed by parents at home, points
out the wide variability in the ways adults share books with children (Teale, 2003; Oyler, 1996).
Present research indicates that language in storybooks is richer and more complex than
language that children are exposed to in their daily conversations (Linn, Meyer, Stahl, &
Wardrop, 2001). Storybooks contain more expressive vocabulary and more multifaceted
sentences than ordinary speech. Storybook reading affects childrens reading acquisition
indirectly, through facilitation of language development. Children can learn new word meanings
through exposure to them in storybook readings, and this incidental learning can measurably
improve childrens vocabulary knowledge (Linn, Meyer, Stahl, & Wardrop). The direct benefits
from exposure to storybooks can come only if children also develop print-related skills, such as
phoneme awareness and word recognition. These skills should be developed in addition to the
language development that comes through storybook reading (Linn, Meyer, Stahl, & Wardrop).
Storch and Whitehurst (2002) reported that the preschool years are a significant period of
development during which young children acquire knowledge of the code- and meaning-based
aspects of both written and spoken language. Many researchers have demonstrated that readalouds are an effective way to introduce students to the joy of reading and the art of listening
while developing their vocabularies, experiential backgrounds, and concepts of print and story
(Fisher, Flood, Lapp, Frey, 2004). Kindle (2009) states that read-alouds fill the gap by exposing
children to book language, which is rich in descriptive language and unusual words. After
observing and learning more information regarding read-alouds, this information leads back to
the notion as to what are the benefits of read-alouds in Early Childhood Literacy Development.
This literature review seeks to explore the research examining read-alouds and their effect on

early childhood literacy development. In the first section there will be an exploration of the
research supporting informational and narrative texts as read-alouds. Secondly, an examination
of how students benefit from discussion during and after read-alouds. Next, a comparison of the
different roles parents and teachers serve in during parent and teacher driven read-alouds.
Finally, a comparison between small and whole group read-alouds, and the benefits each type of
instruction offer students during interactive read-alouds. The research indicates that read-alouds
benefit early childhood literacy development.
Informational and Narrative Texts as Read-Alouds

The selecting of text is a significant aspect for encouraging responses in the classroom. It
is important to build on students localized, cultural, and personal understandings in ways that
are both relatable and engaging (Wiseman, 2011). The types of texts read aloud to students
influences the text to text, text to self, and text to world connections students make. Zucker,
Justice, and Piastas (2009) research demonstrates that there is a dynamic interaction between
teacher and students influenced by the quality and type of text chosen for read-alouds. Since text
selection is privy to the types of information students are learning about, informational text have
found to be very beneficial for teacher led read-alouds. Given the potential benefits of
informational genres and the importance of exposing young students to these types of texts,
Pentimonti, Zucker, Justice, and Kaderavek (2010) conducted a study to analyze the types of
texts read in early childhood classrooms. The purpose of the study was to generate a thorough
understanding of the types of informational texts early childhood educators use in order to
further explore the text, and recognize how the use of informational text in classroom instruction
can address and connect to the content area topics, and local state standards. The research

conducted by Pentimonti, Zucker, Justice, and Kaderavek (2010) was based on a 30-week bookreading study called Project Sit Together and Read (STAR). As part of Project STAR, the
teachers received a new trade book for thirty straight weeks during the school year to read with
their peers in whole class read-alouds. The researcher-provided texts were predominantly of the
narrative genre however the teachers were informed that they were allowed to incorporate
multiple types of texts from any available source into their literacy instruction, particularly
during read-alouds (Pentimonti, Zucker, Justice, and Kaderavek).
Yopp and Yopp (2006) also believe that informational text plays an important role in the
lives of young children. Similar to Pentimonti, Zucker, Justice, and Kaderavek (2010), Yopp and
Yopp (2006) deem that young children are rarely exposed to informational text at school.
Surveys of teacher's practices along with analyses of basal readers suggest that young children
receive little exposure to informational text because they are not well represented in the early
childhood and primary grade levels (Yopp and Yopp). Both studies confirmed that narrative texts
dominate preschool read-alouds and documented that early childhood teachers rarely use
informational genres in preschool classrooms (Pentimonti, Zucker, Justice, and Kaderavek, 2010;
Yopp and Yopp 2006). Findings from both studies suggest that early childhood educators and
literacy instructors need to devote serious attention to their selection of choosing information and
narrative text for classroom read-alouds. It is important for educators to select different types of
text that target a full range of content area topics that are aligned with the local state standards.
Integrating different types of information genres into classroom literacy instruction is expected to
provide exclusive benefits to students language, literacy, content knowledge and interest in
reading (Pentimonti, Zucker, Justice, and Kaderavek, 2010; Yopp and Yopp, 2006).
Pentimonti, Zucker, and Justice (2011), build upon Yopp and Yopps (2006) study
10

regarding childrens exposure to informational texts with preschool through third-grade
classrooms. In an analyzation of 426 titles read by 13 teachers from a systematic sample of seven
weeks of classroom instruction collected over an academic year, studies proved that narrative
texts overpower the genre of text being utilized in preschool classroom read-alouds during
literacy instruction. Not only did the study prove that informational texts are rarely used in the
classroom for literacy instruction, but it also showed that students in preschool have little
exposure to multicultural content, alphabet books, books that included math concepts, and
nursery rhymes or poems. Teale (2003) argues that exposure to various genres is important to
children because the ability to understand different genres of text is vital to the process of
becoming a proficient reader.
Similarly, Oyler (1996) believes that the use of informational books during interactive
read-alouds encourages expert talk and action from students in the classroom. Oyler analyzed
student initiations in response to informational text and found that impulsive initiations offer the
teacher awareness into the understandings children both contribute and take away from the text
(Oyler, 2006). Information books afford students with more occasions to ask and answer
questions as questioning and classroom interaction go hand and hand. Consistent with Oyler,
Smolkin and Donovan (2003) support interactive informational read-alouds as an instructional
approach to support both non-readers and fluent readers. They point out that interactive
informational read-alouds are beneficial to students. Many primary classrooms encourage the
reading of storybooks and neglect the reading of information or non-fiction texts (Smolkin and
Donovan, 2003). Smolkin and Donovan (2001) first became curious about how read-alouds of
non-fiction might differ from the more commonly occurring read-alouds of fiction in their 2001
study. They noticed that changes in discourse between the students when different genres were
11

introduced during read-alouds. Although storybooks can be effectively used for teacher led readalouds, Smolkin and Donovan (2003) found that early exposure to ideas, vocabulary, syntax, and
text structures in informational texts helps prepare children when they shift from learning to
read, to reading to learn. The difference between the story and informational text read-alouds is
that students are provided with opportunities to acquire linguistic features, including text
structures of various expository genres (Smolkin and Donocan, 2001).
Read-alouds involving informational text offers multiple opportunities for text
comprehension-related discussions (Smolkin and Donovan, 2001;Oyler, 1996). Smolkin and
Donovan (2001) believe that different types of adult and child talk take place, as different genres
are read aloud during interactive read-alouds, They believe that differences in conversation occur
in response to the two distinct functions each genres serves. Storybooks are meant to entertain,
and informational texts are meant to inform the reader. Although storybooks seem to be more
engaging and appealing to the reader, Smolkin and Donovan (2001) note that children and adults
can become too caught up in storybook read-alouds. Often times when students get too caught up
in storybook read-alouds, there is little opportunity for any comments or questions. Without the
ability to comment or ask questions in response to the text, students become misinformed. Even
though storybooks are meant to entertain, teachers realize there are both pros and cons to using
storybooks for interactive read-alouds. Unlike narrative or storybooks, Smolkin and Donovan
(2001) think informational text do a better job of informing the reader. When informational texts
are used for read-alouds, they are presented to the child audience with a great deal of text-related
talk (Oyler, 1996). Through discussion of the text students are able to make connections to the
text, and links to prior experiences. The teacher can then further analyze the discussion, ensuring
whether or not the child audience is able to grasp the information from the text. Although there is
12

still much debate over the use of storybooks vs. informational text when reading aloud to
students, Smolkin and Donovan (2001) indicate that information book read-alouds offer
numerous opportunities for literate and non-literate children to acquire a large distinct range of
comprehension principles.
Similar to Smolkin and Donovan (2001) who believe that children acquire a distinct
range of comprehension principles, Fien, Santoro, Baker, and Parks (2011) study on the
enhancement of teacher read-alouds with small group vocabulary instruction suggests that there
is a positive effect on vocabulary development when using informational text during read-alouds.
Research shows that the systematic use of conceptually aligned whole-group and small-group
nonfiction read-aloud texts provide students with opportunities to make text-to-text vocabulary
connections (Fien, Santoro, Baker, & Park, 2011). Consistent with Smolkin and Donovan (2003)
who found that early exposure to ideas, and vocabulary of informational texts helps prepare
children when they shift from learning to read, to reading to learn; Fien, Santoro, Baker, & Park
(2011) believe that children should learn to read before they read to learn. Informational texts,
while supporting content learning, are critical to literacy development because they provide
students with opportunities to read for different purpose, utilize different reading strategies,
develop understandings of diverse text structures and features, and build background knowledge,
comprehension, and vocabulary (Yopp and Yopp, 2006, p.48).
Although storybooks should be incorporated into interactive read-alouds, it is crucial for
teachers to utilize informational text during read-alouds to ensure that the students are making
purposeful text to text, text to self, and text to world connections. When educators incorporate
multiple genres into literacy instruction, students are provided the opportunity to utilize different
reading strategies. As students develop understandings of different text structures and text
13

features, they build new background knowledge, comprehension, and vocabulary with the
introduction of each text which is critical to literacy development.
Discussion During and After Read-Alouds

Students understandings of text can be impacted by discussion during and after readalouds. Heisey and Kucans (2010) study investigated potential effects on student understanding
of carefully planned questions posed during and after the read-aloud. Heisey and Kucan (2010)
were looking to determine whether or not students showed differences of comprehending the text
during the read-aloud and after the read-aloud groups based on the different conversations that
took place during both read-aloud sessions. After much analysis, it was found that more students
in the during-reading group were able to provide evidence to support their answer than students
in the after reading group (Heisey and Kucan, 2010). Similarly, Terblanches (2002) study on
read-alouds enhancing students abilities to read indicated from the responses of 22 teachers on a
read-aloud survey that 70% of teachers agreed strongly that students are usually engaged during
story discussion after read-alouds. During story discussion it is important that students are given
the opportunities to make personal connections to the text, responding with life to text or text to
life connections where students use some of their own life experiences to comprehend or clarify
the text being read.
Like Heisey and Kucan (2010), Terblanche (2002) agrees that the questioning technique
and the types of questions asked during read-alouds are important in regards to the meaning
children take away from the text and the responses and connections they make. In order to take a
more in-depth look at the nature of students initiations and teacher responses during read aloud/discussion events, Maloch and Beutel (2009) conducted a five-month study in a second
14

grade classroom, examining student initiations to see whether or not students were engaging and
making meaning of the text. The students abilities to make predictions, observations,
connections, clarifying questions/comments, and enter the story world would later prove that
student initiations contribute to the instructional conversation within an interactive read-aloud.
Maloch and Beutels work alongside Oylers support that students attach more meaning to the
text when student initiations and teacher discussion takes place during read-alouds. When
students are able to discuss the text during the read-aloud, they are given the opportunity to make
connections to the text right away, instead of having to go back, interpret the text, and then figure
out how they can connect it. Discussion during the read-aloud also provides the teacher with the
ability to correctly interpret, any of the students misinterpretations, therefore they are not making
poor text to text, text to self, and text to world connections. Morrow and Smith (1990) believe
that the most valuable read-aloud events involve social interaction between an adult and a child,
in which both participants actively construct meaning based on the text during the reading
process. Through discussion during read-alouds, students are able to share their thoughts,
questions, interpretations, and observations making visible their logicality to both their peers and
their teachers.
During read-alouds childrens vocabulary development can be enhanced. In Silvermans
(2007) study on vocabulary development and storybook reading, Silverman investigated the
effectiveness of different methods used to promote childrens word learning during storybook
reading. Silvermans findings further supported that engaging children in active analysis of word
meanings during the read-aloud is more effective at promoting their learning of new words than
instruction that merely has children relate words to the context of a story and to personal
experiences in a less analytical, more context bound way after the read-aloud is conducted
15

(Silverman, 2007). In correlation to Silverman (2007), Kindle (2009) suggests that read-aloud
context is an effective method of vocabulary instruction if teachers recognize the practices that
optimize word learning. Kindle (2009) feels that the most effective manner of adding
elaborations and explanations take place during the story. Similar to Silverman (2007), Kindle
(2009) recognizes the importance of conversation taking place during the read-aloud. Unlike
Silverman (2007), Kindle recognizes in her study that students questions about word meaning
that arise during reading is important but may result in extended discourse on words that are not
significant to comprehension. Although the conversation piece is important, Kindle (2009) does
recognize that it can detract drastically from the read-aloud experience. Conversely Silverman
(2007), Kindle (2009) found too much conversation during the text, can further interrupt the
students thought processes, in terms of making text to self, text to text, and text to world
connections.
Fisher, Flood, Lapp, and Freys (2004) study on the components of an interactive readaloud, describes seven components that teachers need to incorporate into interactive read-alouds
in order for it to be effective. During the study of 120 teachers being observed during readalouds, all the expert teachers included components to include teachers stopping periodically,
thoughtfully questioning students to focus them on the specifics of the text (p. 11). Although
many teachers are different in terms of their specific read aloud styles, Barrentine (1996) points
out that many teachers limit the amount of dialogue during the reading and end the event with
critical class discussions regarding the story. These after reading discussions create opportunities
for students to make text to self-connections, allowing the teacher to discover the types of
connections the students are making. The research points out that after-reading discussions are
reflective and aim to deepen, broaden, and personalize story meaning (Barrentine, p. 36).
16

Interactive read-alouds however, where discussion is encouraged during the reading allows the
children to interact verbally with the text, peers, and the teacher during read-alouds. Interactive
read-alouds not only increase vocabulary skills, discussed in previous studies, but as teachers
pose questions throughout the reading that enhances meaning construction and also shows how
one interprets the text. Interactive read-alouds simply keep students engaged with reading
process information as they learn how stories work, how to monitor ones comprehension, and
what to think about a story as it unfolds. While both types of read-alouds are valuable
approaches, the interactive read-aloud approach engages children with strategies for composing
meaning and to facilitate their ability to respond to stories (Barrentine). When teachers are aware
of the discussion-taking place during interactive read-alouds, they are able to form a better
understanding of the kinds of contributions students are making during the discussions.
Childrens responses to text, both during and after the read-aloud can help the teacher understand
the knowledge that the students are taking away from the text in terms of the types of
connections they are making, based on their level of interpretation and understanding of the
texts. During read-alouds discussions and contributions made by the students also function as a
way for teachers to interpret student observations and connections in order to clarify any
misconceptions, confusions, and or questions the students may have in response to the text being
read-aloud by the teacher.
Parent and Teacher Driven Read-Alouds

Children respond well to reading, when it is consistently modeled for them by their
parents and teachers. According to Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, and Linn (2001) tradition suggests
that elementary school teachers should do many of the same things that loving parents do, and
17

one of the things that warm, loving, parents do is read to their children. The goal in their study
was to begin to unravel the mystique of lore and research from studies of adults reading to
children (Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, & Linn, p. 70). Through researching information about
reading to children of various ages through engagement of different contexts, and investigating
specifically the relationships found between teachers reading to students in kindergarten and
first grade classrooms, a longitudinal study of reading comprehension and science knowledge
development in Grades K-6 was conducted to ultimately address the question of how children
learn to comprehend what they read. Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, and Lin (2001) found that children
understand text better when they are given the opportunity to discuss the text with an adult.
Similarly, Gest, Freeman, Domitrovich, and Welsh, (2004) believe that measures of the quantity
of shared reading are inherently inadequate, however, because they do not assess whether critical
features of adult-child language interaction is occurring during reading sessions (e.g., attentionfollowing, contingent and reciprocal dialogue, expansions of child-initiated speech).
The most convincing evidence for the effects of shared reading on childrens language
comprehension skills comes from intervention studies targeting both the quantity and quality of
shared reading sessions (Gest, Freeman, Domitrovich, & Welsh, 2004). Their research proves
that the quantity and quality of shared reading sessions contribute to childrens language
comprehension skills. In Gest, Freeman, Domitrovich, and Welshs study, the focus was on the
relationship between parental discipline practices, shared book reading, and childrens emergent
literacy skills. The focus was to determine the childrens emergent literacy skills, pending their
entry into Kindergarten. Results from the study indicated that the contribution of shared parentchild book reading to childrens language comprehension skills depend on broader patterns of
parent and child interaction. The study revealed that there is a positive association between
18

shared book reading and childrens language comprehension skills as long as parents utilize
reasoning and nondirective approaches in discipline situations. There was also some indication
that parental spanking was negatively associated with language comprehension skills. These
effects were reliable taking into consideration the considerable contributions of parent education
and childrens nonverbal reasoning skills to childrens language comprehension skills. (Gest,
Freeman, Domitrovich, and Welsh). In a similar study done by Currenton and Craig (2011)
research focused on whether or not mothers use the same amount of emotion talk and evaluative
judgments across shared-reading and oral storytelling. Investigations were further made based on
whether or not mothers talked about emotions during shared-reading vs. oral storytelling. Unlike
Gest, Freeman, Domitrovich and Welch (2004), Currenton and Craigs (2011) results yielded
that parent-child oral stories may provoke more sophisticated talk around negative emotions and
misbehavior in comparison to shared-reading interactions. Similarly to Currenton and Craig,
Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, and Linns (2001) study on the effects of parent and teacher shared
reading experiences, did not neglect to point out the negative relationships between teachers and
parents reading to students and student achievement in reading. Although it is said that parents
can have a negative effect on a childs emergent literacy skills, plenty of evidence points the
finger towards the teachers and their inabilities to contribute to a childs growth in literacy
development. Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, and Linn focused their study on the time adults spend
reading to children in Kindergarten and how it affects later reading success in first grade. The
research indicated that it is possible that the negative correlation between teacher and student
shared reading experiences are a direct result of teachers who spend a lot of time reading also
engaged in other activities that are relatively ineffective, or that time spent reading to children
displaces other instructional activities that are more effective (Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, and Linn).
19

The idea that seems to make the most sense in regards to why there is a negative
relationship between the time teachers spend reading to children and their performance in
reading, is because the amount of time that adults spend time reading stories may displace
something else, such as written text that positively affect childrens reading achievement.
Although parents play a positive role in childrens reading achievement before they begin
school, once children are in school their participation in reading appears to be positively related
to their growth and achievement in literacy, based on the type of interactive literacy instruction
they are receiving (Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, and Linn, 2001).
Small Group and Whole Group Read-Alouds

The systematic use of conceptually aligned whole-group and small-group read-alouds
provide students with extended opportunities to connect knowledge and vocabulary across
different types of text. Sipe (2000) believes that small group read-alouds enable the tracing and
tacking of the conceptual relationships in childrens talk. He suggests that the fewer amounts of
students in a group would lessen the amount of input and conversation, making relationships and
connections between the students and the text stand out more clearly. In his research study on
read-alouds, he analyzed childrens verbal responses during large-group read-alouds using
storybooks led by the teacher, and compared and contrasted those findings to small-group readalouds done by the researcher with two groups of five students, and individualized read-alouds
conducted with the same ten students. Sipes (2011) study found that the children contribute their
knowledge from small group sessions, during whole the whole group read-alouds. Contrary to
Sipe, Pentimonti and Justice (2010) found that teachers limited use of high support scaffolding
strategies, negatively affect students abilities to participate in whole group read-alouds.
20

Due to the size of whole group read-alouds, and the amount of interaction involved
during the read-alouds in correlation to the time given for literacy instruction, large size readalouds can be uncomfortable and difficult for some children, as they may require more
individualized support during read-alouds (Pentimonti and Justice). Like Pentimonti and Justice
(2010), Baker, Fien, Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard, Otterstedt, and Williams (2010) believe that
students benefit more from small-group read-alouds than whole group read-alouds because there
is more access to resources, and the instruction time is often individualized and differentiated
based on the needs of the students. In order to target specific concepts for those students who
need a more intense form of instruction, read-alouds done in small-groups are seen to be more
effective then whole-group read-alouds (Baker, Fien, Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard, Otterstedt, &
Williams). In Baker, Fien, et al., 2010 study comparing whole group and small group, tier 2
instruction, students participated in eight weeks of the whole class Read-Aloud Curriculum, and
students from the intervention group received extra support in small groups for 20 minutes, two
times a week, during the 8-week implementation of the Read-Aloud Curriculum (Baker, Fien,
Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard, Otterstedt, and William). The purpose of the tier 2, small group
intervention was to boost of support the students who showed signs of language difficulties, and
vocabulary and comprehension skills.
Similar to Pentimonti and Justice (2010), Baker, Fien, Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard,
Otterstedt, and Williams (2010) findings indicated that small group instruction was more
beneficial then whole-group instruction, as the students vocabulary growth was positively
affected more during the small-group read-alouds. Even though the small group instruction only
consisted of two twenty minute sessions each week, research proved that adding a small group
component to whole class read-aloud is found to be extremely effective, as it enhances content
21

and instruction by providing students with more opportunities to learn, and expressively use
vocabulary in text-based discussions. By incorporating small group instruction into whole class
read-alouds, teachers are able to pre-teach, enhance, and review Read-Aloud Curriculum
vocabulary for at-risk, learners (Baker, Fien, Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard, Otterstedt, and
William.)
In correlation with Baker, Fien, Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard, Otterstedt, and William
(2010) Fien, Santoro, Baker, and Park, (2011) conducted a study to determine the effect of small
group instruction on the vocabulary and comprehension of first-grade students identified with
low language and vocabulary skills. Fien, Santoro, Baker, and Park suggest that it is extremely
important to identify children in the early grades with low language and vocabulary levels, so
that intervention can take place in order to improve vocabulary and comprehension knowledge.
Like Baker, Fien, Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard, Otterstedt, and William (2010), Baker and Fien
(2010) state that small-group vocabulary instruction is a promising mechanism to close the
vocabulary achievement gap for at risk students with comprehension difficulties. Similar to Sipe
(2000) findings from whole-class Read Aloud studies prompted the development and testing of
small group instruction, in order to boost and supplement the whole group read-alouds. In
comparison to Fien, Santoro, Baker, and Parks (2010) study, Fien, Santoro, Baker and Parks
(2011) study targeted support in vocabulary and structured discourse opportunities with
expository content that correlated with the expository texts used in the whole-group readalouds Together both studies examined whether the use of small-group instruction improved the
vocabulary and comprehension performance of students targeted due to low language and
vocabulary skills.
In order to compare the effects of the small-group booster lessons, the outcomes of first
22

grade students who received the small group booster intervention were compared to the
outcomes of the first grade student who did not receive additional small-group instruction. The
results of Fien, Santoro, Baker, and Parks (2010) study on the enhancement of student
vocabulary and language skills demonstrate that small-group read-alouds appears to enhance the
vocabulary knowledge and expository retellings of students identified with low vocabulary and
language skills. The findings from the study derive from classrooms in which students were
currently receiving high-quality whole-group read-aloud instruction that incorporated direct and
explicit vocabulary and informational retells. Ultimately, the study adds to the recent research
indicating that designing, planning, and implementing vocabulary interventions that include
informational text, encourage critical thinking, and can provide multiple exposure, examples, and
connections to promote and enhance vocabulary outcomes during whole-group read-alouds
(Fien, Santoro, Baker, and Park).
Similar to Fien, Santoro, Baker, and Parks (2010) study, Pantaleo (2007) believes that
there are impacts of integrating small group read-alouds into whole-group interactive read-aloud
sessions. During Pantaleos (2007) study, she read eight picture books to her students. The
students participated in both small group and whole group interactive read-aloud sessions. The
findings from Pantaleos study revealed that small group read-aloud sessions present children
with opportunities to tryout, think through, and reflect on their ideas (Pantaleo, p.445).
Through small-group instruction the students identities were influenced by the interactions that
took place during instructional time. The students knowledge about literature and how to discuss
literature with other people was constantly changing as each picture book was read and
discussed. Pantaleo believes that teachers must do more than simply put children together to
converse because if children are not aware of how to apply and interpret classroom discussion,
23

they lose out on the opportunities group work offers. In accordance to Pentimonti and Justice
(2010), Baker, Fien, Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard, Otterstedt, and Williams (2010) who believe
that small ground instruction enhances whole-group read-alouds, Pantaleo(2007) believes that
small group interaction including small group discussions and peer dialogue, encourages
learning. Through small group instruction students are able to strengthen their language and
literacy skills. Pantaleo feels that teachers should continue to record small group discussions, and
analyze videos of student interaction during small group instructions to help implement the right
types of instruction for guided reading, learning centers, inquiry groups, cooperative learning
groups, and whole group read-alouds.
Contrary to Pantaleo (2007), Mol, Bus, and de Jong (2009) did a meta-analysis not only
on the effects of vocabulary acquisition through interactive read-alouds, but also to determine the
knowledge students receive in regards to print. Findings from the study are consistent with Sipe
(2000) and revealed that there was not any support in regards to the conclusion that teachers
should read to small groups when it is sufficient to do so during whole-group interactive readalouds. The meta-analysis demonstrated that childrens skills improved when their teachers
engaged them in whole-group interactive reading sessions (Mol, Bus, & de Jong, 2009). Unlike
Baker, Fien, Park, Haria, Santoro, Chard, Otterstedt, and William (2010), Mol, Bus, and de Jong
(2009) believe that in small group instruction, the amount of extraneous talk and the opportunity
for each child to elaborate on his or her own experiences might be distracting, as the time spent
in small-group instruction is meant to be resourceful and give students more individualized
attention instead.
Whether students are read-aloud to in whole-group instruction, or small-group instruction
it is important for teachers to encourage discussion and have students work on making text-to-
24

text, text-to-world, and text-to-self connections. If students are not engaged by the text, and
involved in discussion they will not get a true meaning of what the text is trying to convey. It is
important that students read for meaning, in order to connect and apply their knowledge. The
exposure to both small group and whole-group read-alouds contribute to student literacy
development, as students gain vocabulary and better understandings of text when there is
discussion surrounding it.
When conducting interactive read-alouds it is important that the reading of the storybook is
characterized by clear routines and objectives (Pentimonti & Justice, 2010). Read-alouds to
students should be integrated into the daily routines of classrooms of all ages, and integrated into
all subject areas. In order for interactive read-alouds to be seen as an enjoyable literacy
experience for students, the teacher needs to choose books connecting to the themes and
concepts being taught in the classroom, keeping in mind the behaviors and interest of the
students who will be taking place in the experience. All books chosen for small-group and
whole-group read-alouds need to be age appropriate and at the students comprehension level in
order for the students to be able to make meaning from the text, and text to text, text to self, and
text to world connections. Children need to be arranged in an appropriate sized space, and be
seated in close proximity to the adult who is constructing the interactive read-aloud in order to
see illustrations and words in different forms of context (Terblance, 2002). Students should be
guided to utilize the pictures as a way to better understand the concepts and vocabulary within
the text.
From the very front cover to the back of the book, no part should be ignored or left out
during an interactive read-aloud (Terblance, 2002). Students should be encouraged to discuss the
story, particularly if they are able to make connections between the story and their own
25

individual lives. However, if a student is unable to connect to the text, they should never be
forced to talk, as long as it is evident that the children can interpret and comprehend the true
meaning and concepts within the text. Although conversation can take place both during and
after the interactive read-alouds it is important to make sure that none of the conversations go on
too long, as the teacher needs to make sure that the students dont get too lost in discussion, and
get distracted from the text (Terblance, 2002). Every child should be allowed to respond to the
text, as it is important that students are given an equal amount of time to share their thoughts
about the story being read-aloud. Not only do read-alouds benefit students comprehension and
vocabulary acquisition, but when conducted appropriately the students become familiar and
exposed to different authors and forms of writing which also help students develop more
concepts of print, as well as better understand the writing process therefore they can prosper as
young readers and writers.
Methods
Context
Research for this study took place at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym). Kangaroo Academy
(pseudonym) is a private early childhood development center located in Upstate New York.
Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) has a current enrollment of 29 students, within three grade
levels. Of those students 10 are at the preschool level, 10 are at the Pre-K level, and 9 students
are in Kindergarten. Of all 29 students, 70% are Caucasian, 13% are African American, 13% are
Indian, and 4% are Asian. Since Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) is a private school and does
not receive any state funding, none of the students receive free or reduced lunch. Kangaroo
Academy (pseudonym) uses a standards based curriculum, following the current themes that
26

align with the NYS Standards and common core. Following a standards based curriculum
ensures that all of the students are provided with an early childhood foundation that meet and
exceed standards in all subject areas. Each classroom provides students with developmentally
appropriate literacy instruction, integrated with mathematics, sciences, social studies, dramatic
play, creative arts, and music in order to enhance student engagement and interests. Although
Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) does not mandate a specific amount of time designated for
literacy instruction, each grade level spends at least 1-1 hours on Language Arts instruction
daily. During this time students engage in reading, writing, speaking, and listening through
participating in read-alouds, guided reading, independent reading, interactive writing,
independent writing, and many other forms of literacy instruction.
Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) has been in operation for three years, and has made great
strides to integrate technology into the literacy program. Although every classroom has access to
cd players for books on tape, only the kindergarteners have daily access to a computer, as it was
specifically purchased for the kindergarten students. Since the majority of the students have not
been provided with much exposure to digital literacy, the director wanted to incorporate more
technology into the classrooms. With the help of the Scholastic Book Fair, Kangaroo Academy
(pseudonym) raised enough money through the school, book fair to purchase a smart board,
which will be available to all grade levels in the fall of 2012.
Although all of the classrooms consist of literacy enriched environments, the preschool
classroom in which the research was being conducted, was immersed in literacy. There is a cozy
classroom library, where books are alphabetized and categorized by the beginning letter of the
title, as the preschool literacy curriculum includes students learning letters and their
corresponding sounds making it possible for the students to make connections between the books
27

they are reading and the letters/sounds they are learning, building on their phonemic awareness
skills. Within the classroom library, there are stuffed animal characters for the students to use as
reading buddies, and all the themed books are put on display for the week, for the students to
access at anytime during independent reading. Above the library, there is a large Dr. Seuss poster
on the wall that says, Reading is Fun to clarify a positive message to the students regarding the
importance of literacy within the classroom environment.
Participants
My current colleagues agreed to be a part of this study. They were asked to complete a
questionnaire regarding the benefits to read-aloud to students, and the amount of time in which
they participate in literacy instruction involving whole group read-alouds within their classroom.
Eliza Cowen (pseudonym) the current director of education, graduated from Triceratops
University with a Bachelors Degree in Inclusive Special Education, and General Education in
1997. After completion of her undergraduate, Eliza received her certifications in Special
Education K-12, and General Education Newborn-6. Eliza then moved home to Rocket, N.Y.
where she attended Nose College (pseudonym) and completed her Masters Degree in Special
and Regular Education in 2000. After earning her bachelors while completing her Masters
program at Nose College, Eliza taught as a Special Education Teacher in the Greasey Central
School District (pseudonym) from 1997-2001. From 2001-2002 Eliza took a position as a
Special Education Teacher in the Wish Star School District (pseudonym), but then took off seven
years to be a stay at home mom for her three children. In 2009, along with her husband, Eliza
designed and opened Kangaroo Academy in Star, New York. (pseudonym) She has been the
Director of Education since the opening.
28

Rae Erins (pseudonym) the current Kindergarten teacher at Kangaroo Academy
(pseudonym) received her Undergraduate Degree in Elementary Education, and Masters Degree
in Curriculum and Instruction. Following the completion of her Master's degree, Rae taught
second and third grade in the Walt Disney Central School District (psedunonym) for two years
following the completion of her Masters Degree for two years as a second and third grade
teacher. After two years in Walt Disney, Rae moved to Kings, N.Y. where she taught Pre-K for
only a year. After teaching in Kings for only a year, Rae relocated to Madhatters where she
taught Pre-K for two more years. After meeting her husband, and making the decision to start a
family, Rae moved home to Rocket, N.Y. and was hired at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) in
Star, where she taught preschool for a year, and is now currently the full-time Kindergarten
teacher. Rae Erins has been teaching for a total of 7 years.
Abbygurl Bush (pseudonym) the current Pre-K teacher at Kangaroo Academy
(pseudonym) received her Bachelors of Science Degree in Communication Disorders and
Sciences at SUNY Friends, outside of Western New York. After completion of her Bachelors
Degree, Abbygurl relocated to the Rocket, N.Y. area where she began her Masters Program at
SUNY Rockyport in School Counseling. While attending SUNY Rockyport, Abbygurl was hired
as a classroom aide at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) in September of 2011, but after only
two short months was promoted to the full-time Pre-K teaching position. While working as a
Pre-K teacher, Abbygurl decided to leave SUNY Rockyport at the end of her first semester in her
Masters Program, and transfer to St. Fish Bowl College where she will be working towards her
degree in Childhood and Special Education, in the fall of 2012.
My 10 students at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) played an active role as participants in
this study.
29

Megan Angell (pseudonym) is a Caucasian 3 year old female, who is currently enrolled
full-time in the preschool program at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym). Megan was born in
Rocket, New York and currently lives in Webber with her mom and dad. Megan is an only child
and often takes on the role of the leader in the classroom. She is an active participant in school,
and enjoys reading, writing her name independently, and being involved in classroom
discussions. Megan spends time participating in dance classes outside of school, and loves
playing outside with her friends.
Renee Marquart (pseudonym) is a Caucasian 3 year old female, who is currently enrolled
in the preschool program full time at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym). Renee was born in
Rocket, New York and currently lives in Star with her mom and dad. Renee is an only child and
often exhibits characteristics of leadership and independence in the classroom. Renee is the
youngest student currently enrolled in the preschool program and will be attending preschool for
one more year in the fall, as she just turned 3 in March of 2011. Renee enjoys playing with her
stuffed animals, taking naps, and playing with her older male cousins, as she is the youngest and
the only girl out of all the children in her extended family.
Adelaid Brown (pseudonym) is a Caucasian 3 year old female, who is currently enrolled
in the preschool program part-time at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym). Adelaid attends
preschool twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays only. Adelaid was born in Georgia as an
only child, and her parents are currently divorced. She lives with her mommy in Webber, and
visits her daddy who is still located in Georgia. Adelaid is a very introverted child, who plays
well with her friends but often shows sign of separation anxiety in school when her dad is
visiting from out of town. Adelaid is a follower who goes along with the flow, and gets along
with all of her peers.
30

Jean Hunts (pseudonym) is a Caucasian 3 year old female who is currently enrolled at
Kangaroo Academy full time for preschool. Jean is the youngest of 4 children, as her older
siblings are between 6-12 years older than her. Jean is independent, but quiet as she often has
trouble exhibiting her full potential in the classroom without asking for assistance. Outside of
school Jean is involved in gymnastics, where she loves to do flips and tumbles. Jean enjoys
reading and loves to read princess stories with her daddy every night before bed.
Joanna Gilbert (pseudonym) is a Caucasian 3 year old female who currently attends
preschool at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) part time. Although Joanna was attending
preschool full-time in the fall, she was reduced down to part time in February after the birth of
her twin sisters. Joanna has attended the early childhood program since it began, when she was
only a newborn in the infant room. Joanna is an independent leader, who loves being the center
of attention and showing off all of her skills. She enjoys reading princess books to her sisters,
and practicing writing the names of all the members of her growing family.
Marshall Glizer (pseudonym) is a Caucasian 4 year old male who currently attends
preschool at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym) full time. Marshall has been attending the early
childhood program since he was just a toddler. Marshall is one of two children, as he has an
older sister who he loves to spend time with. Marshalls parents are currently in the midst of
divorce, and his actions at school have been a result of the new changes he is facing at home.
Marshall works very well independently and is a strong leader. He is in the beginning phases of
reading and can read and recognize every name of all the students in his class. Marshall enjoys
reading The Biscuit Series every night before bed with his mom and sister.
Thomas Casey (pseudonym) is a Caucasian 4 year old male who currently attends
preschool full time at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym). Thomas had a very inconsistent
31

schedule in the beginning of the year, as he came to school every other Monday, for half a day
on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and stayed home on Fridays. Thomas is an only child to his parents
who have been in the process of mediation throughout the whole school year trying to get a
custody schedule set between both mom and dad in order to benefit his educational, physical,
and emotional needs. Thomas is very attentive during story time and loves to participate. He is
an active learner, and loves to read books about super heroes.
Henry Manciney (pseudonym) is a 3 year old Caucasian male who attends preschool full
time at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym). Henry is the youngest of 4 children, and the son of a
librarian and former pre-school director. Henry is extremely intelligent, as he engages in
classroom discussions and often makes text to text, text to self, and text to text connections
considering he is immersed in a world of literacy, both inside and outside of school. Henry loves
to dance, play basketball, and read Thomas books!
Max Rae (pseudonym) is a 3 year old Caucasian male who attends preschool full time at
Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym). Max is the oldest of two children, and the son of the full time
kindergarten teacher. Max enjoys learning how to write his name, playing with his friends, and
watching Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. He comprehends information very well during read-alouds,
and is always making connections between the stories and his real life. Max gets along with all
of his classmates, and is very well behaved and mannered. His parents spend a lot of time
reading and playing with him at home.
Paul Betsy (pseudonym) is a 4 year old Caucasian male who attends preschool part time
at Kangaroo Academy (pseudonym). Paul is the oldest of two children. Paul was born in Rocket,
New York where he currently lives at home with his mom, dad, and baby sister. Paul attends
school on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. He enjoys reading books and watching movies
32

about trains. Pauls favorite series is the Thomas the Tank Engine Series, as he can name and
identify all the names of the trains and what their job is. Paul is very active and enjoys being out
on the playground as long as he has the company of his toy trains and friends. He likes reading
to his baby sister and is really trying hard to write his own name independently.
Researcher Stance
As an active participant of the study, I was considered to be an active participant observer
as I was so immersed in what I was doing with my students that I didnt have time to record my
observations in a systematic way during the school day (Mills, 2007). As an active participant I
tried to engage my students as I encouraged them to apply their understandings of literacy
through class discussion and application as the students were always encouraged to make text to
text, text to self, and text to world connections.
Along with having the privilege of being an active observer of the study, I also had the
opportunity to be what Mills (2007) suggests is a Privileged, Active Observer. Every day I was
fully engaged with my students during our read-alouds at story time. Not only did I read-aloud
the text that I selected to my students every day, but I also made sure that the text was connected
to our current theme, which correlated to the NYS Early Childhood standards. I truly believed
that if the read-alouds were effective, then students would be able to apply their knowledge and
understanding from the text, as they worked on other skill areas such as writing, word study,
math, science, and social studies. With the help of my assistants on a daily basis, there were
many times where I was able to observe my students from the background, as my assistants took
on the role as teacher and guided my students through specific literacy activities, that were
extensions of the read-alouds, to build on the students comprehension and understanding of the
33

text. I felt privileged to be an active observer, as there were many times where I could sit in the
background and observe my students, moving back and forth between the role of teacher,
assistant, and observer.
I have had many privileges while conducting the study, considering that I am working
with my own class, as I am currently the full time pre-school teacher at Kangaroo Academy
(pseudonym). While teaching full time I am also a current graduate student at St. Fish Bowl
College. I am presently working to obtain my degree in Literacy, and extend my certifications as
I currently have a Bachelors Degree in Childhood/Special Education 1-6, and Early Childhood
Birth-2. Even though I have been working as an early childhood educator for the past year, I also
taught in the Webber Central School District (pseudonym) as a math resource specialist, during
the 2010-2011 school year.
Method
Having had the opportunity to conduct my research with my current preschoolers, I was
able to implement classroom read-alouds every day for a little over a week. Although I was the
teacher conducting the read-alouds, I was able to make observations and take mental notes based
on what and how I saw the students interact and discuss the text during our daily read-alouds.
The constant interaction and class discussion helped me to see how well the students were able to
comprehend the choice of text being read-aloud for the given day. Since read-alouds are not the
only form of reading that takes place within the classroom, I was also able to observe the
students when they were independently reading the themed books designated for their use during
the week. Through exposure to different types of literacy practices, I was able to see the
students interactions with the themed books as they were read-aloud, and read quietly on the
34

carpet in our classroom library. I was able to make these careful observations every day for an
hour and half, consecutively for a week and a half. When reading the story my assistants took
audio recording, therefore I could go back and analyze the types of feedback the students had to
offer in terms of their responses to questions, vocabulary terms, and whole group discussion.
Prior to reading the story the students in my classroom would first discuss the theme of
the week, which allowed them to make text-to-text connections, and develop an understanding as
to why we were reading the chosen story for the day. One reading strategy that I hoped the
students would utilize was their ability to draw connections based on looking at the title and
picture of the book, and the current theme of the week. Since the students had an understanding
of what it meant to make predictions, I wanted them to predict what they thought the story was
about based on the discussion surrounding our theme, and their interpretations of the front cover
and pictures within the text.
In order to interpret and analyze student commentary throughout the read-aloud, I
thought having each read-aloud recorded would be beneficial in order to capture the dialog
between the students as they engaged in discussion surrounding the text. To keep students
focused and engaged, each student had been designated their own space on a little animal print
carpet square, in order to have their own space, and feel secure thus keeping their attention on
me, as I participated in the read-aloud. Since the students are young, and still at the early
childhood level, only few vocabulary words were introduced to them initially. I wanted to focus
on discussion and misinterpretations during the reading, to keep from overwhelming the students
with too much content, taking away from the text. While reading, I felt as the teacher that it was
necessary to stop periodically and ask questions, in order to check for understanding and make
sure the students could comprehend any new vocabulary or illustrations within the text.
35

Concluding the read-aloud, the students were then guided to make connections based on
discussion of new concepts and vocabulary they had taken away from the text. The students then
participated in class work, projects, and activities after the read-aloud as an extension to further
integrate concepts, and make connects from the reading to our weekly theme.
After the read-aloud, and while engaging in extensions of learning through class work,
projects, and activities, the students were given every opportunity to discuss the text read-aloud,
and they were encouraged to make text to self, text to text, and text to world connections based
on their understanding and comprehension of the text. Through the creation of reading
comprehension activities, and correlating specific books with specific literacy instruction, I was
able to be an active participant in my own study
Along with the participation of the students, it was crucial to involve the teacher
participants as in my study. In order to understand the importance of read-alouds in other early
childhood classrooms, all of my teacher participants completed a classroom literacy environment
check list (Appendix B). The checklist enabled the teachers to decipher whether or not their
classroom environment was a true literacy environment in which the teachers and students
engaged in literacy activities. The teachers all described their classrooms as being well beyond
the literate environment in which reading and writing is modeled and literacy instruction is fully
supported with developmentally appropriate resources.
Quality and Credibility of Research

Mills (2007) believes that there are four essential aspects that characterize the validity of
qualitative research. In order for the research to be considered valid it is important that
research has credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Based on Mills (2007)
36

explanation of credibility, the researcher should take into account the complexities that are
presented within the study, in order to deal with patterns and information that is not easily
explained. I exhibited means of credibility within my study, by collecting student work samples
after each read-aloud, that directly connected to each text. Each read-aloud session was also
recorded in order to capture and analyze any dialogue that took place in response to the text,
between the students and the teacher.
Along with credibility, transferability was also present within my research study.
According to Mills (2007) transferability references qualitative beliefs that everything studied
within the research is context bound, given that the goal of their investigation is not to develop
truth statements that can be generalized to larger groups of people (Mills, 2007, p.104).
Through collecting detailed and descriptive data of my students participation and discussions
before, during, and after read-alouds, my study allows for interpretation of both the classroom
literacy environment, and interactions and discussions that took place between the students with
each read-aloud.
Along with credibility, and transferability, Mills (2007) believes that research should be
dependable. Mills (2007) states that dependability is the constancy of data. By overlapping the
methods in which the data is collected, Mills (2007) supports Gubas (1981) theory that the
weakness of one method can be compensated by the strength of another method. During my
study I was able to have my read-aloud sessions digitally recorded, in addition to taking notes
and making personal observations of student interaction. Through the utilization of both
methods, my research is more consistent, making it easier and possible to capture all of the
necessary and important interactions taking place among the students.
The final characteristic that Mills (2007) supports is the confirmability or neutrality of the
37

data that has been collected throughout the research study. Confirmability took place within my
study, through the process of triangulation. Mills (2007) in support of Gubas (1981) argument
states that the practice of triangulation involves the utilization of a variety of data sources, as
different methods are compared to one another in order to cross-check the data. Although I have
not kept any type of journal reflecting on my study or current literacy instruction, I always self
reflect after each lesson in terms of thinking of what I would change, or do different during the
next lesson to help the students become more engaged and gain a better understanding of the
text. By looking back and re-viewing the digital recordings of all my read-aloud sessions with
the students, I am able to reflect on so many different aspects of literacy instruction within my
classroom. Furthermore, I have the ability to compare the different types of student work and
activities my students participated in how well the students accomplished the work, in correlation
to the types of discussion and connections that were made by the students each read-aloud
session.
Informed Consent and Protecting the Rights of the Participants
In order to obtain and collect any data throughout this research study, consent and assent
was mandated from all of the participants included within the study. It is important that the rights
of every single individual participant, which is why all participants are required to print and sign
their name giving consent to the researcher that they are aware of their role as a participant
during the study. Since I am the teacher, I immediately discussed with my director of education,
colleagues, and parents the extent of my study, and what I was looking to find during my
research. I verbally explained to all of the participants that every member of the studies rights
would be protected, as I explained that all names would be changed for confidentiality purposes.
Since the majority of my participants are minors, all of my parents willingly agreed to sign the
38

permission forms for their children to be able to fully participate and engage in my research
study. I made sure to ask the parents if they had any questions or concerns, and consistently
discussed with them on a daily basis the components of my study that took place during
instruction each day that the research was conducted. I also explained the extent and purpose of
my study to the teacher participants, and made sure to have them sign consent forms for their
participation.
Data Collection
As an active participant observer, and a privileged active observer I was able to collect
multiple forms of data throughout my research study. With the privilege of conducting research
within my very own classroom, using my very own students I was able to take notes and observe
student interactions during the read-alouds, have my assistants digitally record the discussions
and interactions between the students and myself during the read-alouds, create informal
comprehension assessments and literacy activities to determine whether or not the students
comprehended the text, encourage the participation of my students in reading and writing
activities to extend their understandings from the readings, walk around my classroom to
determine my students level of engagement, encourage my students to make predictions, and
inferences during the read alouds, and discuss with my colleagues the importance of read-alouds
and the benefits of incorporating them into daily literacy instruction (Appendix A).
Data Analysis
When analyzing all of my data, and interpreting student discussion, conversations, body
language, and comprehension levels I found that every single one of my students benefited from
39

daily read-alouds. I was able to notice these findings as I went back and previewed the video
recordings, observing student behavior, initiations, and writing down specific quotations and
remarks made by my students, in connection with the read-aloud material. When looking at the
teacher surveys and questionnaires I specifically looked for specific trends. For example, all of
the participating teachers noted that they participate in read-alouds daily, and that they use readalouds to drive their instruction. The classroom literacy environment checklist findings
acknowledged that each and every classroom was equipped with the proper literacy materials, as
well as consistent teacher modeling. I analyzed the checklist by noting the trends in terms of
which statements the teachers responded with true or false in correlation to their classroom
literacy practices and environment.
Not only did I base my findings on observations that were made during literacy
instruction, and after instruction from reviewing the digital recordings, but also by grading my
students work in order to see if they were truly applying what they had learned from the text,
based on their text to text, text to self, and text to world connections. If the student work samples
were accurate then their answers matched my master key with all of the right answers that I
made directly from the answers within the book. I also analyzed student work when asking the
students specifically why we working on specific reading, writing, or math piece and wrote down
the responses that showed the students could make a connection between the read-aloud and the
following literacy instruction. When analyzing the teacher surveys by looking for specific trends,
and common answers within each, I noted all the answers in which the teachers responded with
true, in regards to their responses in correlation to the benefits and frequency of reading aloud to
students at the early childhood level.
40
Findings and Discussion

After careful examination and analysis of the data collected throughout my
research, a few themes emerged. These themes were found consistently throughout the
data and demonstrate how read-alouds benefit early childhood literacy development. The themes
include the following: connecting text to instruction during read-alouds, teacher and student
interactions during read-alouds, and the classroom literacy environment.
Connecting Text to Instruction During Read-Alouds

The first major theme that emerged from my research was that interactive read-alouds
make it easier for students to connect what they have learned from the story, and discussion
surrounding the story to classroom instruction. This theme was evident throughout several
aspects of my research, including the teacher questionnaires, student work samples, and recorded
read-aloud observations. Student connections due to the implementation of interactive readalouds in the classroom is one topic that I came across during my review of literature found in
Heisey and Kucans (2010) study, and Terblances (2002) study. The idea of using interactive
read-alouds to help students make text to text, text to self, and text to text connections during
student work and instruction was a trend that continuously appeared in my review of current
research on the topic of read-alouds benefiting early childhood literacy development.
When I went back and analyzed the video recordings of myself conducting daily readalouds with my preschool students, the students appeared to be focused and engaged during story
time. Students like Megan Angell, Henry Manciney. Max Rae, Renee Marquart and Thomas
41

Casey (2012) always say Zip it lock it put it in your pocket out loud when they come to the
carpet and are ready for me to begin reading the story. It is the students way of showing me they
are ready to listen. Looking back at the video recordings, I noticed that all the students were
sitting nicely on their carpet squares, asking questions and making remarks in response to the
stories. Some of the questions the students asked when first being introduced to our first book for
the Fathers Day Theme included Are we reading books about our dads this week? (Henry,
June 2012) and We are going to learn all about Fathers Day to make things for our dads for
Fathers Day right Miss Megan? (Joanna, June 2012). Although it is not always easy to keep
three and four year olds engaged, I purposely selected books for our Fathers Day Theme that I
knew my students could relate too. Once our daily routine of calendar, weather, and discussing
the letter and theme of the week were completed, I began to shift the students focus towards the
stories I chose to read-aloud each day. With a few reminders here and there, once I began to
discuss the text the students recognized that they needed to pay attention to the story. Discussion
began with the very front cover, as the students often pointed out the author and illustrator and
made predictions about the story. From the discussion of vocabulary words, to pointing out and
discussing rhyming words, the students seemed very engaged as they were raising their hands
eagerly, all asking questions in response to the text. During interactive storybook reading,
engagement refers to the points at which the listeners have opportunity to respond personally and
interpersonally with the story and with the process and strategy information used to make sense
of the story (Barrentine, 1996). Often times, an event would take place in the story consistent to
our weekly theme, leading the students to connect the text to their lives, as they shared examples
of silly stories, or memories they re-called. Marshall for example would not stop waving his
hand until he was able to share how his Dad was his hero because he makes him feel better when
42

he gets a boo boo. After reading Hero Dad, some of the other responses from the kids were My
dads a hero because he makes me feel better when I am sick (Megan Angell, June 2012). When
student make direct connections between the text and their personal lives it gives the text more
meaning. Students should be encouraged to discuss the story, particularly if they are able to
make connections between the story and their own individual lives as such responses validate the
connections and interpretations students make from the text (Terblance, 2000). When students
can connect to a story they often comprehend the story better, and can essentially make meaning
from the text.
After analyzing the teacher questionnaires, it was clear to me that Mrs. Cowens, Mrs.
Erins and Ms. Bush truly believed that there were several benefits of interactive read-alouds in
the classroom. When classroom teachers stimulate conditions available to learners in natural
classroom settings, students will achieve success in literacy teaching and learning (Barrentine,
1996). According to Mrs. Cowen, The benefits students gain from the read-aloud experience
include connecting text to weekly instruction, comprehension of story and topic, increased
vocabulary, increased student-student and teacher-student conversations, and the ability to learn
and enjoy stories using their imaginations (Teacher questionnaire, July, 2012). Like Mrs.
Cowens, Mrs. Erins also states the benefits students gain from the read-aloud experience
include listening and comprehension skills, increase in vocabulary, memory and language skills,
development of interest, and the gaining and connecting of information surrounding the world
around students (Teacher questionnaire, July, 2012). Students have the potential to gain so
many academic and social skills through their experience and engagement with read alouds.
Students learn how to discuss and interpret the text, along with the asking and answering of
questions in order to comprehend and make connects with the text. In addition, Ms. Bush
43

believes that students gain the ability to build reading comprehension, which helps with the
development of pre-reading skills and strengthens and encourages students attending skills
therefore they can make better connections (Teacher questionnaire, July, 2012). When students
are given an early literacy foundation they are able to make more meaningful connections, thus
grasping a better understanding from the stories their teachers read aloud. Heisey and Kucan
(2010), Terblanche (2002) agree that the types of questions asked during read-alouds are
important in regards to the meaning children take away from the text and the responses and
connections they make. When the students were asking questions during the read-alouds, it was
evident to me that they were trying to make sure they were interpreting the story correctly.
Through their ability to make inferences like Max Rae (2012) who would always say things
along the lines of We are reading books about fathers because its father day this week and
Thomas Casey who made frequent predictions. In the story What Dads Cant Do Thomas
looked at the covered and stated I think the dad wants to be like the little dinosaur but he is too
big (Thomas Casey, June 2012). Through the students inferences and predictions, I was able to
tell whether or not they comprehended the story and were making proper connections. Most of
my students were able to connect the stories to other stories we had read that week, significant
events in their life and then take it one step further and discuss the story during academic
instruction.
In order to keep the connections flowing, I would ask the students why they were
participating in specific academic activities, while they were partaking in them. During the first
week of my research, our academic theme was Fathers Day. During Fathers Day Week, my
students were read-aloud the following titles: The Daddy Book by Todd Parr, My Daddy and Me
by Jerry Spinelli, Hero Dad by Melinda Hardin, Just Like Daddy by Frank Asch, and What
44

Dads Cant Do by Douglas Wood. For every story, I made sure to implement lessons where
student instruction centered on the theme, and a concept or skill present within the text. For
example after reading aloud the book Hero Dad, the students participated in a writing activity
where they had to choral read, and trace a poem called My Daddy is My Superhero! After
reading the poem and interpreting it together, I asked the students questions as to why they
would be tracing a poem about daddy being a superhero? And what makes a daddy a superhero?
After looking back at the video recordings reveal that the preschoolers responses revealed
statements such as Because we read a book about a daddy who was a hero! (Max Rae, June
2012) and A daddy is a superhero because they are brave and keep me safe (Thomas Casey,
June 2012). These types of statements prove that the students are making text to text and text to
self-connections, as they understand the reason why their work is important. As children respond
to texts, they are informed by their own lives and conceptual understanding, drawing from their
ideas to build and create knowledge from all different types of content within the classroom
(Wiseman, 2010).
When the students participated in another academic piece following the story What Dads
Cant Do by Douglas Wood, their comprehension level was being assessed, as their task was to
use a graphic organizer and sort and glue pictures of all the things that the dad from the story
could and could not do. The seven out of nine of my students that were in attendance that day all
completed the graphic organizer completely accurate matching all the correct pictures in each
category. The student work samples clearly indicated that the students were able to comprehend
the text well enough to independently sort the events from the story correctly because every
student was able to put all of the pictures of the dinosaur dad and what he could do on the page
of their worksheet that said What dads CAN do and all of the pictures of the dinosaur dad and
45

what he couldnt do on the page of their worksheet that said What dads CANT do. As an
extension to see whether or not the students really understand the concept of what dad cant do, I
had the students respond to a written prompt at the bottom of the graphic organized which was
then transcribed for them to trace. Many theorist agree that childrens understanding of print
accumulates in large part through mediated contact with print during shared reading and writing
experiences (Justine, McGinty, Piasta, Kadervek & Fan, 2010). The written prompt asked the
students what their dads couldnt do. The students then needed to use their knowledge from the
read aloud to construct a well-written response in relation to the story. The student responses
ranged from answers like My dad cant play in the climbing structure because he is too big
(Jean Hunts, June 2012) and My daddy cant dress up in my princess clothes (Megan Angell,
June 2012). The responses were yet again another indication that the students were able to
understand the concepts and events that took place within the story. Along with reading, writing,
and math activities, the students also completed books for their fathers as apart of their Fathers
Day gifts titled My Dad and I and My Daddy and Me (Appendix B) that were completed
during shared reading and writing lessons. The students were responsible for tracing the
responses they had provided in response to the pre written prompts in the book, and then draw a
picture to represent their statements. Although the pictures were not as detailed as the responses,
the students showed great success with being able to describe important facts and events in
regards to their dads!
Teacher and Student Initiations During Read-Alouds

Another theme that emerged from my research was how teacher responses to student
initiations invite, accept, and build on students' abilities to contribute to literature discussions.
46

Barrentine (1996) described interactive read-alouds as instructional conversations in which the
teacher poses questions throughout the reading that enhance meaning construction and also
show how one make sense of the text (p. 36). After conducting my own research, I found that
students add to the discussion, whether it is based on the connections they are making or the
spontaneous thoughts in their head.
In order to really analyze the initiations between the students and myself I had my
classroom aides video tape me reading aloud to the students for a week and half. Since I chose
my books based on the weekly theme, all of the discussion taking place between the students and
myself were centered around our Fathers Day and Summer Vacation themes. Everyday our
read-alouds began with me initiating the conversation. After introducing the story to the students
I would immediately ask the students questions such as Why are we reading about kids and
their dads? or What do you see on the front cover of this book? The point of me doing this
was to get the students brains activated. Once I did that, I found that the students responses
mostly bounced off my initiations with a few He is kicking me (Megan Angell, June 2012) and
I have to go to the bathroom, (Jean Hunts, June 2012) comments in between. Whenever I
asked the students why we were reading stories about specific themes Max Raes (2012) always
responded I was able to really depict that the students who made the most initiations were the
students who were focused and paying attention during the whole story. These students sat still,
gave direct eye contact, constantly raised their hand, and sat quietly while I read the story aloud.
My frequent bathroom goers, fuzz finding, disruptive friends were the students who lacked
initiations that connected with the text or initiations all together. If the students were preoccupied
with something else then they werent giving their full attention to the story. Not paying attention
to the read-aloud in turn made it very difficult for the students to comprehend the text as they did
47

not have any desire to want to participate in conversation surrounding the text simply because
they couldnt understand it. Barrentine and Oyler (1996) and Sipe (2000) believe that when
students are encouraged to verbally interact with text, peers, and teachers, meaning construction
is enhanced and it becomes more evident how one is making sense of text.
Student initiations during interactive read-alouds can provide insights into the ways
students are connecting to and making sense of the text. Not only does the video recordings show
the students making connecting initiations, but also there are many examples where the students
are shown making predictions, observing text and illustrations, entering the story world, and
asking questions for clarification. The students made predictions when I asked them specific
questions such as What do you think the little boy thinks his dad is a hero? or What types of
things do you think the dad cant do? One particular prediction that stands out is from Adelaid.
Adelaid predicted that the dad was a hero because The daddy is wearing the camouflage and he
fights and protects our country like we learned on Amorial Day (Adelaid, June 2010). Megan
Angell showed her ability to enter the story world when she looked at the cover of the book Hero
Dad and replied My Uncle Mark is a daddy and he is a hero because he is in Afghanistan
fighting the bad guys and then when he is done fighting the bad guys he will come home and
meet baby Mason (Megan Angell, June 2012). By initiating these types of conversations, my
students became more engaged, as there are many instances where they were all putting up their
hands, desperately wanting to share their responses. Initiating predictions demonstrated to be
extremely beneficial, as many of the students became more engaged as they were eager to see
what was going to happen by the end of the story. When students make predictions, it indicates
that they want to be involved with the story (Maloch & Beutel, 2010). Predictions can be made
in any childrens book and encourage students to think about and remember what they have read
48

as they make connections to the text based on their predictions. When students become directly
involved with the story they remain engaged, as students want to know if what they think will
happen actually take place in the story. When making initiations in regards to observation of text
and illustration, I noticed my students sometimes got carried away. For my younger and
immature students, these were the times when a student would focus on something silly like the
little boy having a yellow face, on the front cover of Todd Parrs The Daddy Book, and ramble
on and on about how little boys cant have yellow faces. My youngest student Renee Marquart
(2010) commented right away But Miss Megan a daddy cant have a yellow face, thats not a
daddy! Marshall Glizer (2010) immediately followed Renees comment with Haha a daddy
with a yellow face is so funny In situations like these, I noticed that one students initiations
could negatively affect the initiations of the rest of the students, causing them to bring up
conversation that did not connect to the text. It was in times like these when I had to do my best
to transition the students with initiations that would re-engage them with the text. Although it
was often a distraction, I tried to use those examples as teachable moments to explain to the
students the things they can and cannot share when they raise their hand in response to the story.
Contrary, it was also through observations and illustrations of the text in which some of my
students really saw the connection. When looking at the cover of the book What Dads Cant
Do by Douglas Wood, one of my students was able to depict that the dad wasnt able to hide
under the fountain like the boy because he was too big. But Miss Megan the daddy dinosaur is
too big to play hide and sike under the water fountain. See he cant fit under there (Henry
Manciney, June 2010). Student initiations like the one Henry made are a direct example of how
students make meaning from the text, as observations and illustrations of the text can provide the
student with the opportunity to make their own initiations, instead of drawing from the teacher
49

initiation first. According to Maloch and Beutel (2010) student initiations during these kinds of
events can provide insights into the ways students are connecting to and making sense of the
text. When a student can connect to the text without the influence of the teacher then it shows
that the student can truly comprehend and understand the story at an independent level.
Another type of student initiation evident throughout my research was what Sipe (2000)
called entering story world. In these types of initiations, students relate to the characters and act
as if they are apart of the story, making suggestions about what they would change as the author.
Sipe (2000) argues that these kinds of initiations are expressive and performative in nature and
indicate a deep engagement with the storied world. Most of my students take pride in relating to
the characters and get excited when they see that they have something in common from the
characters in our stories. During the second week of my research, our classroom theme was
Summer Vacation. During that week, I read the story Curious George Goes to an Ice Cream
Shop by Margaret and H.A. Reys. Since ice cream is something we often enjoy during summer
time, I thought the story would be extremely appropriate for my students and our weekly theme.
Right away, the students began discussing their favorite types of ice cream. Particularly, one of
my students instantly connected Curious Georges experience at the ice cream shop with his first
visit to the new frozen yogurt shop in town. Just from discussing the front cover his immediate
response was I went to get ice cream at Yo-icecreamery (pseudonym) last night with my family
just like Curious George went to get ice cream (Henry Manciny, June 2012). Another student
made an entering the story connection by stating I want to work at an ice cream parlor when I
get big, just like Curious George! (Marshall Glizer, June 2012). By validating my students
responses with positive feedback to their comments, it helped keep their interest and desire to
want to read-on through the story, making the read-aloud extremely successful.
50

Having a better understanding of the kinds of contributions my students made in response
to our literacy discussions helped me to expand my understanding of how students make
meaning from text. Maloch and Beutel (2010) believe that the kinds of contributions students
make to discussions, when not directly influenced by the teacher, expands teachers theoretical
knowledge of the way in which children respond to text, further highlighting the ways in which
teachers can better support and encourage meaning making. It is through student and teacher
initiations that student contributions function as a way to express their observations and
connections, in order to clarify any misconceptions or confusion the students may have during
interactive read-alouds.
Classroom Literacy Environment

The final theme that I discovered in my research was the classroom literacy environment.
In order for all of the research to connect, and make sense it is important that classroom literacy
environment properly supports and meets the needs of all the students. As young learners still in
the emergent phase of reading, it is important that the classroom is organized to reflect the
philosophy of active learning (Sipe, 2000). The classroom literacy environment should include
various developmental appropriate spaces, contained with the tools and materials students needs.
In order to research the environment of Kangaroo Academys current classrooms, all of the
teacher participants were given a Classroom Literacy Environment Checklist (Appendix B).
Table 1 below describes the results from the Classroom Literacy Environment Checklist in
percentages; based on the number of statements each of the teachers checked off as true.
51
52
Table 1
Classroom Literacy Environment Checklist
____________________________________________________________________
% of Statements Checked
as True
____________________________________________________________________
T/1
T/2
T/3
Categories
____________________________________________________________________
1. Availability of learning materials
100%
100%
100%
2. Childrens use of learning materials
100%
100%
100%
3. What the teacher or assistant does
100%
87.5%
100%
4. The teachers back ground
100%
75%
100%
5. About the classroom and school, preschool, or
100%
100%
100%
center
Note. T/1 represents Teacher Rae Erins, T/2 represents Teacher Abbygurl Bush, and
T/3 represents Teacher Eliza Cowens.
The table indicates how each teacher had to indicate whether or not the statements were
true or false based on whether or not their classrooms were literacy friendly. The checklist was
broken down into five categories, and within each category there were a number of questions in
which the teachers checked true or false. The first category of the Classroom Literacy
Environment Checklist (Appendix B) measures the Availability of learning materials. The
statements range from Alphabet books are readily available for childrens use, Crayons and
pencils are readily available for childrens writing and drawing, to At least 25 picture books
are readily available for childrens use. Out of eight total statements, all three of the teachers
that participated in my study checked off true to all 8 of the statements totaling 100% in the
availability of learning materials catergory.
jmaples 8/10/12 4:13 PM

Formatted: Font:Not Bold

The second category of the checklist measures Childrens use of learning materials. Six
statements are listed within the category, and some of the statements include Children in the
class engage with an adult in shared book reading sessions with an adult at least four times a
week, to Games, materials, and activities are used regularly to help children learn to print the
letter of the alphabet. Out of all six statements, the three participating teachers all checked off
true to all 6 of the statements totaling 100% in Childrens use of learning materials catergory..
The third category went on to measure the Roles of the teachers and assistants. Some of
the sixteen statements read The teacher frequently introduces new words to children while
reading picture books, to The teacher regularly has detailed and informative conversations
with children about things that interest the child. The statements also included The teacher
sends home materials that encourage parents to help their children learn the letters of the
alphabet, to The teacher is enthusiastic about the literacy and language activities that are
included in the classroom curriculum. Findings showed that in this category only Eliza Cowens
and Rae Erins were able to check off true to all of the statements totaling 100% in the Roles of
the teachers and assistants category while Abbygurl Bush checked off false to statements such as
Teacher encourages children to express themselves using complete sentences, and Teacher
helps children learn to write other peoples names. Abbygurl checked 14 out of the 16 statements
true totaling 87.5% Since Abbygurl is a pre-k teacher, it is understandable as to why her students
arent using complete sentences when writing, or writing other peoples names for that matter.
Abbygurls students are in the beginning phases of writing, and although they are practicing their
letters and writing their names along with small fragments, they cannot achieve those concepts
simply because they arent at that stage of writing yet.
The last two categories of the checklist measure Teachers background, and The
53

classroom, and school, preschool or environment. The five statements included on the checklist
under teacher background include, The teacher is a good read, The teacher has a large
vocabulary, The teacher graduated from college, and The teacher has received training in
early literacy or reading readiness. Out of all the statements, Abbygurl is the only one who was
unable to check off true as she does not have any formal early literacy and reading readiness
training, therefore in that category Abbygurl checked only 3 out of 4 statements true, totaling
75%. Abbygurl is beginning her masters in the fall at St. Fish Bowl College where she will be
taking early literacy classes at that time. The last category pertaining to the classroom
environment describes statements that discuss student engagement, literacy instruction, health
and developmental screenings, and children enjoyment. Out of all seven statements, all three of
the teachers were able to check false, proving that the students are immersed in developmentally
appropriate literacy friendly classrooms, where they are engaged and instructed academically in
order to succeed as a reader and writer.
Out of a total of 41 statements, both Eliza Cowen and Rae Erins were able to truthfully select
true over false in regards to their classroom literacy environments totaling 100% in all five
catergories. Abbygurl checked off that 38 of the 41 statements were true totaling 92.6%, proving
that she too has a great environment for literacy learning. The Classroom Environment Check
List includes a chart to determine how literacy friendly teacher classrooms are, based on the
number of true/false checks. Since all three teachers checked off 38 or more checks, they are all
classified in the 31-41 areas, which state that their classroom literacy environments have most of
the necessary elements!
With the help of classroom libraries that contain an abundance of literacy, the integration
of literacy practices and modeling, the proper utilization of resources, positive praise and
54

encouragement, classroom literacy environments is crucial to a childs literacy development.
Children respond to literature in a many ways: through art, drama, creative play, music, and in
the everyday conversations of the classroom (Sipe, 2000). In my research, I found that childrens
writing, art, and so much more can modeled based on books they hear or read, but a strong
classroom literacy environment provides more then a model, as it truly influences the attitudes
and development of children as readers and writers.
Implications and Conclusions

The findings from my research suggest several implications for me as I continue to teach
at the early childhood level. While it is very evident that there are many benefits in reading aloud
to students, every read-aloud experience is different for each individual. When participating in
read-alouds, students are able to increase their vocabulary, comprehension, and make meaning of
the text through discussion, application, and text to text, text to self, and text to world
connections. In my findings, I was able to see how well students are able to engage in interactive
read-alouds by their abilities to make different connections to the text and apply their literacy
skills in specific literacy activities following the read-aloud. Not only did I examine how read
alouds benefit early childhood literacy development through observation and analyzation of
student work in their writing responses and interactive discussion but also through student
participation and engagement. Using a classroom literacy environment checklist and a teacher
read-aloud questionnaire, I also discovered the importance of read-alouds to educators at
different early childhood levels, and the specific benefits of developmentally appropriate literacy
instruction using interactive read-alouds. Read-alouds are important as they truly provide
students and teachers with engagement and interaction at all levels. Read alouds provide teachers
55

with the ability to integrate reading and writing instruction with an interactive and engaging
experience for the students as they learn important skills and concepts from all different content
areas. Through in depth discussions, behavior, and application teachers can truly utilize read
alouds as an effective way to teach to students and be able to truly understand their strengths and
weaknesses as a reader and writer. As an early childhood educator, I truly feel that it is crucial to
read and discuss literature with students everyday. It is also important to model to students the
importance of literacy by creating a literacy equipped environment within the classroom,
incorporating numerous resources for student and teacher use during literacy activities, and
modeling to the students the importance of reading, by showing your love for reading too.
During the time given for the daily interactive read-alouds, the students were always
engaged in the different stories that were being read. During the week of the study, our current
theme was Fathers Day, so all of the books read-aloud during the week were all books about
being a dad. Prior to reading each book, the students made predictions about what the books
would be about based on their observations of the front cover. The students would also ask
questions and make statements connecting the theme to the story, as we discussed how each
specific book related to our weekly theme, and the instruction and activities we were
participating in. While reading the books aloud, I made sure to discuss the important events and
characters in the book as they appeared and took place. I would engage the students in
conversation throughout the interactive read-aloud to make sure they comprehended the story
correctly. I also wanted to make sure that any misunderstandings or misinterpretations were
addressed, to ensure the students were making proper meaning of the text. According to
Barrentine (1996), during interactive read-alouds, teachers pose questions throughout the reading
that enhance the meaning construction and also show how one makes sense of the text. When
56

students connect to the text, they are more engaged with the reading process. With each daily
read-aloud the students were all able to connect to the text because the theme of the week was
Fathers Day and each student held a special place in their hearts for their daddys. After more
discussion following the read-alouds the students were then sent to their seats for instruction
following the text that somehow connected to each story and the main theme, through reading,
writing, and creative arts.
Limitations
If given the chance to do further research in this study, there would be several things that
I would incorporate to better enhance and support my findings. The first thing I would do is read
the book at the same time every day. Since my research took place at the end of the school year
when there was a lot of end of the year chaos, our daily read-alouds didnt always fall at the
same time each day. Although the students were engaged, and enjoy daily read-alouds, their
level of engagement is always best during the morning hours. Since we have different end of the
school year events to coordinate around, sometimes our read-alouds were done in the afternoon
when the kids were often tired and not as attentive. Along with more consistency, I would want
to provide the students with more in-depth vocabulary instruction. Kindle (2010) states thats
vocabulary is a critical factor in building proficiency in reading. Although I always picked a
few vocabulary words to highlight and discuss with the students throughout the read-alouds, I
would incorporate the use of a vocabulary word wall, to help build the students vocabulary and
provide them with a written visual that they could always refer back to. When teachers
incorporate vocabulary in the form of word walls, the students can refer back to the words as
they come up in each read-aloud.
57

If more time had permitted, I would have spent more individual time with each student as
they were completing reading and writing instruction following the different read-alouds. Since
it was important for me to engage in conversations following the read-alouds, I let my assistants
sit with the students while doing their work. Although I was up walking around the classroom,
observing the students and discussing the text with them I did not have enough time to personally
sit down with each student and listen to all of their interpretations of each text. I also did not get
the chance to have all of the students explain their work. Although I could grade and analyze
their work samples, hearing their explanation would have given me more insight as to what the
students really took away from the text. Although I wasnt able to discuss the text with each
individual student, I do feel that as a whole I learned a lot about my class and the students
abilities to comprehend and make meaning of the different text. Furthermore I was able to create
and implement developmentally appropriate lessons and projects correlating with the theme for
my students.
Another aspect of this study that I would have liked to explore throughout this study, was
a chance to observe another early childhood educator incorporate read-alouds. Although I was
able to include the other teachers in my study through the use of a read-aloud survey and a
classroom literacy environment checklist, it would have been nice to observe an interactive readaloud at a different level in another classroom. Since the students build on their foundation at
each level, it would have been interesting to see how read-alouds are incorporated at the pre-k
and kindergarten level. I feel that it would be beneficial to analyze the type of instruction
following the read-alouds, and the literacy abilities of the students at the pre-k and kindergarten
levels in order to provide my preschool students with instruction that they can build off once they
leave preschool and continue on with pre-k and kindergarten.
58

Along with analyzation of other teachers conducting read-alouds at the pre-k and
kindergarten level, it also would have been beneficial to further incorporate parents into my
study. With more time I would have liked to assess the students abilities to comprehend a story
read-aloud to them by their parents. Too get more feedback from the parents I would have also
liked to discover the reactions and thoughts of the parents, and their thoughts on as to whether or
not they believe read-alouds benefit early childhood literacy development.
Overall, the research that was conducted was for the sole purpose of helping educators,
parents, and students understand the benefits of reading aloud to students during their years of
early childhood development. The daily interactive read-alouds that were observed and
conducted were very conducive to the development of all the students who participated. At the
completion of this study, students were able to make meaning of text, and understand the
importance of text to text, text to self, and text to world connections.
Conclusion
My research study was focused on the question; How do read-alouds benefit early
childhood literacy development? Through my research, I discovered the importance of language
and literacy acquisition. According to Goodman (1984), children begin to acquire language at a
very young age, as they begin to engage and actively participate in literate experiences within
society. During the process of language and literacy acquisition, children learn how to make
meaning of both spoken and written words through the interaction and development of
vocabulary using oral and written language. Parents serve as an important model of oral and
written language, as they provide children with the necessary tools and resources to develop and
acquire language from the moment they are born. Teachers play an important role in a childs
59

ability to acquire language as well, as they provide students with the foundations of reading and
writing. If children are exposed to the proper resources, and given the necessary tools with
support from their parents and teachers at a very young age, student will show a passion towards
reading demonstrating their engagement of the text through their level of discussion surrounding
the reading material. When the students are engaged and involved in conversations surrounding
the text it is then evident whether or not the student is making correct meaning of the text, thus
making real text to text, text to self, and text to world connections.
Today, literacy instruction is incorporated into classroom instruction at all levels.
Although many teachers still conduct read alouds at the intermediate levels, it is found that
teachers of primary grades read to their children more often. For many students in todays
society who do not receive early childhood education, the primary level can be the first time a
child is introduced to different text. Even though children at the early childhood level are in the
beginning phases of emergent literacy, if more text and genres are read-aloud to the students
starting in preschool and pre-k, students will be more familiar with literacy practices by the time
they get to the primary levels, starting with a bigger foundation, thus displaying more knowledge
and skill as readers and writers. When students are emerged in a classroom literacy environment,
they often find comfort in books. Even without the ability to read students can connect with
literature through pictures, words, and letters. Reading aloud to children promotes discussion and
encourages students to ask questions and seek answers about ideas they can connect or relate too,
kids want to know the who, the where, the when, they why, and the how? They want to interpret
and discuss pictures and vocabulary within the text. Ultimately read-aloud makes a story come to
life for younger students, engaging them and capturing their thoughts discussion and
interpretation of the text.
60

When completing my research, I was able to learn and understand the many components
of effective read-alouds at the early childhood level. My study was found to be most beneficial
for early childhood level teachers as it helps them to understand the literacy abilities of students
at the preschool level. My study highlights the important aspects of read-alouds including the
benefits of discussion during and after read-alouds, the roles of parents and teachers during readalouds, the use of informational and narrative text in read-alouds, and the benefits of whole
group and small group interactive read-alouds.
Though conducting this research, I have learned some beneficial strategies and
information that are necessary to help students at the early childhood level acquire vocabulary
even though they may not necessarily be able to read phonetically. Through discussion of
vocabulary, modeling of written word, and implementing instruction surrounding the vocabulary
students become familiar with specific words and begin to recognize and memorize the meaning
of vocabulary. They are also able to further identify the vocabulary words within different
context as well.
The importance of modeling was also a key factor learned throughout this research study.
Although the students were not able to read independently, by consistently modeling how to
properly hold a book, pointing out and discussing key vocabulary, highlight the different parts of
the book, discussing the illustrations and key themes in the story the students were provided with
the necessary instruction to encourage reading both inside and outside of the classroom.
Read-alouds are beneficial to early childhood literacy development as most students at
the early childhood level love to hear stories read-aloud and look forward to storytime. During
storytime, young students will readily engage with good books read aloud by a teacher who
enjoys books and the read-aloud experience (Barrentine, 1996). The teacher can enhance the read
61

aloud and a students literacy experience by leading students to engage with aspects of literacy
that contribute to the meaning-making process. Through on-going interaction during read-alouds,
and providing students with instruction that connects to the text after the read-aloud, teachers can
target key literacy and process information for the ultimate purpose of supporting individual
response and comprehension of the text. Furthermore interactive read-alouds benefit early
childhood literacy development providing young students to make text to text, text to self, and
text to world connections through written and oral literacy practices.
62
References
Barrentine, S.J. (1996). Engaging with Reading Through Interactive Read-Alouds. The Reading
Teacher, 50, 36-43.
Burrell, A., & Riley, J. (2007). Assessing Children's Oral Storytelling in Their First Year of
School. Instructional Journal of Early Years Education , 181-196.
Curenton, S. M., & Craig, M. (2011). Shared-reading versus oral storytelling: associations with
preschoolers' prosocial skills and problem behaviours. Early Child Development & Care,
181(1), 123-146.
Fien, H., Santoro, L., Baker, S. K., Park, Y., Chard, D. J., Williams, S., & Haria, P. (2011).
Enhancing Teacher Read Alouds With Small-Group Vocabulary Instruction for Students
With Low Vocabulary in First-Grade Classrooms. School Psychology Review, 40(2), 307318.
Fisher, D., James, F., Diane, L., & Nancy, F. (2004). Interactive Read-Alouds: Is there a
Common Set of Implementation Practices? International Reading Association , 8-17.
Jacobs, J. S., Morrison, T. G., & Swinyard, W. R. (2000). Reading Aloud to Students:
A National Probability Study of Classroom Reading Practices of Elementary School
Teacher. Reading Psychology , 171-193.
Justice, L., McGinty, a., Piasta, S., Kaderavek, J., & Fan, X. (2010). Print Focused ReadAlouds in Preschool Classrooms: Intervention Effectiveness and Moderators of Child
Outcomes. Language, Speech & Hearing Services In Schools, 41(4), 504-520.
Kindle, K. J. (2009). Vocabulary Development during Read-Alouds: Primary Practices.
Reading Teacher, 63(3), 202-211.
63

Kindle, K. J. (2010). Vocabulary Development During Read-Alouds: Examining the
Instructional Sequence. Literacy Teaching & Learning: An International Journal Of Early
Reading & Writing, 14(1/2), 65-88.
Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The Uses of Informational Texts in a Second Grade
Classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(3),315-362.
Maloch, B., & Beutel, D. (2010). "Big loud voice. You have important things to say": The
Nature of Student Initiations During One Teacher's Interactive Read-Alouds. Journal Of
Classroom Interaction, 45(2), 20-29
Meyer, L. A., Wardrop, J. L., Hastings, C.N., & Linn, R. L. (1993). How Entertaining Ability
and Instructional Settings Influence Kindergarteners Reading Performance. The Journal of
Educational Research, 86, 142-160.
Meyer, L., Stahl., Linn, R., & Wardrop, J. (1994). Effects of reading storybooks aloud to
children. Journal of Education Research. 88 (2), 66-84.
Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M.,T. (2009). Interactive book reading in early education: A
tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research,
79(2), 979-1007.
Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student Initiations During Teacher-Led Read-Alouds of
Information Books. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149-160.
Pantaleo, S. (2007). Interthinking: Young Children Using Language to Think Collectively
During Interactive Read-alouds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(6), 439-447.
64

Pence, K. L., Justice, L. M., & Wiggins, A. K. (2008). Preschool Teachers Fidelity in
Implementing a Comprehensive Language-Rich Curriculum. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 39(3), 329.
Pentimonti, J., & Justice, L. (2010). Teachers Use of Scaffolding Strategies During Read
Alouds in the Preschool Classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 241-248.
Pentimonti, J.M., Zucker, T.A., & Justice, L.M. (2011). What Are Preschool Teachers
Reading in Their Classrooms? Reading Psychology. 32(3), 197-236.
Pentimonti, J. M., Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Informational
Text Use in Preschool Classroom Read-Alouds. Reading Teacher, 63(8), 656-665.
Silverman, R. (2007). A Comparison of Three Methods of Vocabulary Instruction during ReadAlouds in Kindergarten. Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 97-113.
Sipe, Lawrence R., (2000). The Construction of Literacy Understanding by First and Second
Graders in Oral Responses to Picture book Read-Alouds. Reading Research Quaterly, AprJun2000, Vol.35 Issue 2, p252, 24p.
Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The Contexts of Comprehension: The Information
Book Read Aloud, Comprehension Acquisition, and Comprehension Instruction in a FirstGrade Classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 97-122.
Smolkin, L.B. & Donovan, C.A. (2001). The Contexts of Comprehension: Discussion
Strategies on Students Comprehension and Interpretation of Complex Literature.
Reading Psychology, 20(3), 177-212.
Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2003). Supporting Comprehension Acquisition for
Emerging and Struggling Readers: The Interactive Information Book Read-Aloud.
Exceptionality, 11(1), 25-38.
65

Storch, S.A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral Language and Code-Related Precursors to
Reading: Evidence from a Longitudinal Structural Model. Developmental Psychology,
38(6), 934-947.
Teale, W.H. (2003). Reading Aloud to Young Children as a Classroom Instructional Activity:
Insights from Research and Practice. In A. van Kleeck, A. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.),
On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 114-139). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Terblanche, L. (2002). Read-Alouds: Do They Enhance Students Ability To Read? 14 pp.
Walsh B. A., & Blewitt, P. (2006). The Effect of Questioning Style During Storybook Reading
on Novel Vocabulary Acquisition of Preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal,
33, 273-278.
Wisemanm A. (2010). Interactive Read-Alouds: Teachers and Students Constructing
Knowledge and Literacy Together. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38,431-438.
Yopp, R, H., & Yopp H, K. (2006). Informational Texts as Read-Alouds at School and Home.
Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 37-51.
66
Appendix A
67
68
69

Appendix B
70
71

References
Barrentine, S.J. (1996). Engaging with Reading Through Interactive Read-Alouds. The Reading
Teacher, 50, 36-43.
Burrell, A., & Riley, J. (2007). Assessing Children's Oral Storytelling in Their First Year of
School. Instructional Journal of Early Years Education , 181-196.
Curenton, S. M., & Craig, M. (2011). Shared-reading versus oral storytelling: associations with
preschoolers' prosocial skills and problem behaviours. Early Child Development & Care,
181(1), 123-146.
Fien, H., Santoro, L., Baker, S. K., Park, Y., Chard, D. J., Williams, S., & Haria, P. (2011).
Enhancing Teacher Read Alouds With Small-Group Vocabulary Instruction for Students
With Low Vocabulary in First-Grade Classrooms. School Psychology Review, 40(2), 307318.
Fisher, D., James, F., Diane, L., & Nancy, F. (2004). Interactive Read-Alouds: Is there a
Common Set of Implementation Practices? International Reading Association , 8-17.
Jacobs, J. S., Morrison, T. G., & Swinyard, W. R. (2000). Reading Aloud to Students:
A National Probability Study of Classroom Reading Practices of Elementary School
Teacher. Reading Psychology , 171-193.
Justice, L., McGinty, a., Piasta, S., Kaderavek, J., & Fan, X. (2010). Print Focused ReadAlouds in Preschool Classrooms: Intervention Effectiveness and Moderators of Child
Outcomes. Language, Speech & Hearing Services In Schools, 41(4), 504-520.
Kindle, K. J. (2009). Vocabulary Development during Read-Alouds: Primary Practices.
Reading Teacher, 63(3), 202-211.
72

Kindle, K. J. (2010). Vocabulary Development During Read-Alouds: Examining the
Instructional Sequence. Literacy Teaching & Learning: An International Journal Of Early
Reading & Writing, 14(1/2), 65-88.
Maloch, B. (2008). Beyond exposure: The Uses of Informational Texts in a Second Grade
Classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(3),315-362.
Maloch, B., & Beutel, D. (2010). "Big loud voice. You have important things to say": The
Nature of Student Initiations During One Teacher's Interactive Read-Alouds. Journal Of
Classroom Interaction, 45(2), 20-29
Meyer, L. A., Wardrop, J. L., Hastings, C.N., & Linn, R. L. (1993). How Entertaining Ability
and Instructional Settings Influence Kindergarteners Reading Performance. The Journal of
Educational Research, 86, 142-160.
Meyer, L., Stahl., Linn, R., & Wardrop, J. (1994). Effects of reading storybooks aloud to
children. Journal of Education Research. 88 (2), 66-84.
Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M.,T. (2009). Interactive book reading in early education: A
tool to stimulate print knowledge as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research,
79(2), 979-1007.
Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student Initiations During Teacher-Led Read-Alouds of
Information Books. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 149-160.
Pantaleo, S. (2007). Interthinking: Young Children Using Language to Think Collectively
During Interactive Read-alouds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(6), 439-447.
73

Pence, K. L., Justice, L. M., & Wiggins, A. K. (2008). Preschool Teachers Fidelity in
Implementing a Comprehensive Language-Rich Curriculum. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 39(3), 329.
Pentimonti, J., & Justice, L. (2010). Teachers Use of Scaffolding Strategies During Read
Alouds in the Preschool Classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 241-248.
Pentimonti, J.M., Zucker, T.A., & Justice, L.M. (2011). What Are Preschool Teachers
Reading in Their Classrooms? Reading Psychology. 32(3), 197-236.
Pentimonti, J. M., Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2010). Informational
Text Use in Preschool Classroom Read-Alouds. Reading Teacher, 63(8), 656-665.
Silverman, R. (2007). A Comparison of Three Methods of Vocabulary Instruction during ReadAlouds in Kindergarten. Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 97-113.
Sipe, Lawrence R., (2000). The Construction of Literacy Understanding by First and Second
Graders in Oral Responses to Picture book Read-Alouds. Reading Research Quaterly, AprJun2000, Vol.35 Issue 2, p252, 24p.
Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2001). The Contexts of Comprehension: The Information
Book Read Aloud, Comprehension Acquisition, and Comprehension Instruction in a FirstGrade Classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 97-122.
Smolkin, L.B. & Donovan, C.A. (2001). The Contexts of Comprehension: Discussion
Strategies on Students Comprehension and Interpretation of Complex Literature.
Reading Psychology, 20(3), 177-212.
Smolkin, L. B., & Donovan, C. A. (2003). Supporting Comprehension Acquisition for
Emerging and Struggling Readers: The Interactive Information Book Read-Aloud.
Exceptionality, 11(1), 25-38.
74

Storch, S.A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral Language and Code-Related Precursors to
Reading: Evidence from a Longitudinal Structural Model. Developmental Psychology,
38(6), 934-947.
Teale, W.H. (2003). Reading Aloud to Young Children as a Classroom Instructional Activity:
Insights from Research and Practice. In A. van Kleeck, A. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.),
On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 114-139). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Terblanche, L. (2002). Read-Alouds: Do They Enhance Students Ability To Read? 14 pp.
Walsh B. A., & Blewitt, P. (2006). The Effect of Questioning Style During Storybook Reading
on Novel Vocabulary Acquisition of Preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal,
33, 273-278.
Wisemanm A. (2010). Interactive Read-Alouds: Teachers and Students Constructing
Knowledge and Literacy Together. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38,431-438.
Yopp, R, H., & Yopp H, K. (2006). Informational Texts as Read-Alouds at School and Home.
Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 37-51.
75

Literacy Development in Early Childhood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literacy Development in Early Childhood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benefits of Read-Alouds

in Early Childhood Literacy Development

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Dr. Joellen Maples

School of Arts and Sciences

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Informational and Narrative Texts as Read-Alouds

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Discussion During and After Read-Alouds

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Parent and Teacher Driven Read-Alouds

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Small Group and Whole Group Read-Alouds

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Quality and Credibility of Research

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Findings and Discussion

Connecting Text to Instruction During Read-Alouds

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Teacher and Student Initiations During Read-Alouds

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

BENEFITS OF READ-ALOUDS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LITERACY DEVELOPMENT